OH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1428 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2475 times:
With the amount of money going down the toilet each day you wonder how they can pay to paint anything!!
Again do we have to beat the dead horse that switching into a new scheme doesn't mean it costs the company lots of money, the planes have to be painted every once in a while anyways - most of the planes (737's, etc.) are planes that were wearing the old Shuttle by United paint job, and needed it's every 5-year paint job or whatever.
On another note, SkyWest's first aircraft in new UA colors should be arriving within the next month... should be cool
Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
Ua777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2471 times:
I don't think they are wasting $$. They are smart about how many a/c to paint and what a/c to paint and what time to take them out of service. If you wanna see stupid they should pull the 744s into the paint shop. They are pulling out the a/c that are not the back bone of the airline which is smart right now.
Way to be on top of it. I know A LOT about UA. I would have gotten maybe half of that! Way to go!
RHSNYC From United States of America, joined May 2004, 95 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2453 times:
Y E S! Very true - the new livery does look much better in person. Many people have said that UAL should have added some other color such as "Red" in the scheme to give it a little more contrast. This would not have worked however as United's new colors are pretty much restricted to varying hues of Blue or Silver. Silver might have been an interesting addition to the cheatline! Would like to see that in a fantasy livery!
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 29 Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2146 times:
As has been mentioned before on these forums, the repaint isn't going to cost extra money as the aircraft being repainted are those going in for heavy maintenance checks. During these checks the aircraft are stripped and repainted again after maintenance, so regardless of the livery change THEY HAVE TO BE PAINTED AGAIN ANYWAY. If anything the change saves UA a little money as there are less colors involved in the repaint.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2048 times:
1 777, N775UA, wears the new livery, N654UA (If you want to count it as featuring some of the new UAL colors in the new Star Alliance scheme). Also, ex-Shuttle-By-United 733s are receiving the new livery. I am told that for the moment those aircraft desperately in need of a paint job are the ones that will get the UAL livery for now. Sadly, the UA 744s won't wear the new livery until October or November
Caetravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 898 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2010 times:
I, like you, would be appalled if our tax dollars were going for this repaint. However, that is not the case in any way, shape, or form. Any post 9-11 government funds that were received by the airlines, were received by ALL of them, in proportion. If you are referring to the ATSB loan guarantee, there are a couple of misconceptions that you have. The first one is that ATSB loan guarantee would be the government making a loan to UAL. This is not the case AT ALL. This is the ATSB guaranteeing 90% of the loan so that private lenders can loan the money to UAL at a competitive rate. The other misconception you have is that this guarantee has already been made. It has not, it is still being evaluated.
Again, like a couple of others have stated, the repaint is not costing additional money. Quite the opposite, it is SAVING money. It is a less complex scheme, and aircraft that are being painted have to be repainted ANYWAY.
I am not trying to be rude here, just trying to clear up a few misconceptions so that people will understand how much better run UAL is than it was a couple of years ago, and that it is seemingly on the road to recovery.
All of that being said, I like the new colors, and really look forward to seeing them for myself in the near future.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
It WILL take awhile. United is fighting bankruptcy while simulataneously starting TED and introducing its new livery. They are extremely low on cash. Great as the new livery is (I think it's fantastic ) , if UA tries to please all who love the new livery too quickly, they might destroy themselves in the process through mass spending. It will take awhile, but we'll see the day. UA must manage their finances carefully if they expect to ever paint their whole fleet. That means gradual spending
Syncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 14 Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1861 times:
7E72004, UA mainline is geared towards business travelers, and high paying ones. Painting their name on the side of the aircraft like F9 would probably not look the best to a lot of business travelers. I'm not saying it's bad, I personally think F9's livery is great, but is definitely geared towards leisure travelers more then business.